Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

View

Discuss

Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

mdsolar (1045926) writes "Owners of at least two dozen nuclear reactors across the United States, including the operator of Indian Point 2, in Buchanan, N.Y., have told the Nuclear Regulatory Commission that they cannot show that their reactors would withstand the most severe earthquake that revised estimates say they might face, according to industry experts. As a result, the reactors' owners will be required to undertake extensive analyses of their structures and components. Those are generally sturdier than assumed in licensing documents, but owners of some plants may be forced to make physical changes, and are likely to spend about $5 million each just for the analysis."

> How many Fukishimas, windscales, three-mile-islands and chernobyls do we have to have before we say enough is enough. We CAN power this planet on renewables.

Sweet dreaming my friend. Not possible on current technology.Hawai, Arizona, Germany is showing there are LIMITS to how much solar and wind can be added to the grid before destabilizing it.You say solar and wind is cheap, but you only account for the cost of the wind turbine and solar panels, and ignore the cost of redesigning the grid and implementing extremely costly energy storage solutions.

If you are unwilling to expose yourself to any risks, just give up and kill yourself. Life is full of risks.The issue is nuclear is being put against an idealized, impossibly perfect solution.More solar panel installers and wind farm maintainers are killed worldwide every year than nuclear workers, although the 435 operational nuclear reactors in the world produce enough juice to run the entire Europe electricity demand.Nuclear is safer than solar and wind will ever be. Because nuclear is a dense power source, making it economical to adopt the extreme safety attitude it currently enjoys. Just because Japan was irresponsible in it's nuclear regulatory system, doesn't mean North America and Western Europe is.

Until you can think outside your eco fundamentalist bubble, it's impossible to discuss this further.Your statements show that you aren't interested in looking at pro nuclear rational data, you are only interested in drinking the anti nuclear eco fundamentalist cool aid.